Why would you ruin your career by copying from one of the most popular ips in tabletop?
Why would you ruin your career by copying from one of the most popular ips in tabletop?
Why would you ruin your career by copying from one of the most popular ips in tabletop?
Could've at least changed the hair color. So where did the "artist" steal the other character from?
No, the question is why did the artist think that nobody would notice? Mtg fans are going to check and verify even the smallest details because of autism, there was no way that this would go unnoticed.
On a side note, the artist was extra lazy as mentioned, the girl and guy have the same copypasted clothes and horrendous axes, how lazy can you get. Extra points for the shitty stairs getting blurry and deformed under her right arm. In 2020+4 you would think that the artist could use some process to modify the final picture and mask the most obvious traces - this way she could claim that she just referenced it or pay homage or whatever.
>why did the artist think that nobody would notice
hubris. low iq
>So where did the "artist" steal the other character from?
A guy named Will Hulsey.
Disingenuous. There were a substantial amount of changes, they weren’t to form or composition but that doesn’t invalidate them entirely.
"If you're gonna steal my art, at least don't lazy about it." - Titty Kubo about finding out that Gene Simmons's son was tracing his art for a comic.
That quote applies here, too much of Fay's work is left unaltered. Had he traced his collage then painted something new, then it would be worth not redacting but if wotc actually did
this, it would actually earn back a little bit of customer loyalty. Something they need.
Kubo is literally the last motherfricker that should be complaining about laziness.
It's not about being lazy, it's about being a lazy thief. You get to be one not both.
Kubo almost died from overworking himself. He has a genuinely good reason to be lazy.
>a substantial amount of changes
Surely you're jesting, just look at the stairs, it's just lazy.
If this is a new card, AI made it and WotC doesnt know where the AI <strike>stole</strike> got inspired from!
go back to discord homosexual
AI doesn't flat out copy paste cropped things. That talent is still securely held by artists.
You're never going to convince them that AI isn't a collage machine no matter how much you explain machine learning in depth.
Why not also include the arch?
Then you're just going to continue to be wrong whenever you interject your ignorance into any topic regarding AI. It flat out can not copy an image unless you feed it like 4tb of copies of the same picture (Which is what it took for a university studying "Plagiarism viability" in AI had to do to get a similar result, with nothing else in the data set).
You're going to get the average of millions, not the copy paste of 3.
>Why not also include the arch?
I'm an artist not an architect.
A collage machine literally cannot create anything that didn't exist previously.
A.I. generators can extrapolate novel poses and mix different styles.
>A collage machine literally cannot create anything that didn't exist previously.
Neither can human artist. Even eccentic art styles like Impressionism or cubism are just re-hashes of something the artist has seen.
Seeing with your eyeball and perception are two separate processes, which is why we're capable of creating more abstract art, such as the human depictions of Ukiyo-e or impressionist, pointilist paintings. Decently trained artists have a broad range of tools and, hopefully, a set of insights on how they themselves mentally process the inputs generated by sight.
As Dali claims to have pointed out to a hater - your waifu might look like that drawing, but your wife doesn't look like that photo at all. She's moving and shifting and turning and that constant flow of perceptions is what creates the totality of your image of her.
So a video can?
No. Film is a 2D medium. You also don't want to watch the 1,152,000 minutes of its production, but the 90 that have been arranged for your pleasure.
lol nice.
>why?
Balancing deadlines, cost to effort and making a bad decision about how autistic nerds are with memorization and pattern recognition.
Might just cycle through in the wash though for the company, social media news feeds are even faster than the 24hour mill of the 20th century.
>Balancing deadlines, cost to effort
Should've just posed and traced a 3D model.
Or just trace over the whole character and not just doodle some shit over parts of it.
>and making a bad decision
Artists are not usually very good at much else.
>Balancing deadlines
Artists have the easiest deadlines ever. I'm not just saying that, they factually do. The struggle artists face is doing a good enough job in the first place. A single artist could pump out an entire set in a week, easy, the hard part would be keeping a consistent quality.
If you're good, you're good, your good.
>cost to effort
This isn't even a factor in the mind of a plagiarist. They would happily spend a million dollars now if it would make them the most famous artist who ever lived in a year's time.
As for effort, it's not so much about effort as it is about lack of ability.
When you create something, you have copyright of it. It's not something you need to register or buy or earn, if you created it, the copyright to it is yours - you just have it.
Unless, you donate it, or contractually hand over copyright.
The former, copyright ceases to exist for that material, while the latter, it still exists.
Copyright is NOT the same thing as IP, though there are common sense overlaps, so confusion or mistakes are understandable.
Complain about copyright all you want, as soon as it's gone, the little guy is the one getting fricked over the most by it's vanishing.
The realm crime on display is drawing their elf ears so short and rounded.
lmao artist also stole the other half from an old "Trapped" detective magazine cover
even kept the bloody headwrap
Why are you such a lazy shitc**t?
oh no no no
Man I haven't seen shit like this since back when Chinese MMOs used to do it all of the time.
Good to know WotC is at that level now.
And the downward trajectory is still far from its end.
>all that unearthed arcana is just them digging for rock bottom
I'd be surprised if it takes them much longer to hit it. Between burning bridges with every self-respecting artist, making their first-party content increasingly derivative and anemic to try and justify boxed sets as a publishing standard, and scaring off every third-party developer in a nakedly illegal attempt to steal OGL revenue, there's not much to sell themselves on anymore. Their biggest wins of late have come from other people, most of whom want nothing to do with them anymore. Matthew Mercer is writing his own system, and Larian has officially washed its hands of D&D and is doing its own thing.
The biggest problem is that D&D 5e fans (and I imagine this applies to Magic, but I don't know or care much about that scene) are D&D 5e fans, not TTRPG fans. Sure, some of them will jump ship once WotC collapses into a vacuum of suck, but they won't be back unless some other property becomes the new hotness with great marketing reach. The problem with the mainstream is how much piss and shit there is compared to little backwater estuaries that make up the rest of the hobby.
>making their first-party content increasingly derivative and anemic to try and justify boxed sets as a publishing standard
Remember when TSR made eight million box sets, but they were actually decent a lot of the time?
Amusingly this isn’t copyright infringement at all. Hack artist sure but there is nothing copyrightable about the unnamed characters that were traced.
Artwork in and of itself is copyrightable.
I think he's misunderstanding the high bar of proof required to prove copyright infringement via tracing. Due to lawsuits against lightbox artists in the comic industry, the burden of proof is is almost impossible to prove without having the physical paper or file the work was drawn on.
plagarism is seperate from copyright violation of IP.
and both are unethical.
Plagiarism and IP Violation are both kinds of copyright infringement. Ethics are irrelevant in this post-postmodern hyperreal era, all that matters is legality.
It's never unethical to take corporate or government money for a shitty product.
It was probably just AI generated and they did some minor editing to it without realizing it was a sourced image.
They're a business not an art studio.
Yet again, that's not how AI generation of images works. AI generated art does not in any way involve copying and pasting elements from other works and then doing a palette swap but this illustration contains perfect matches for multiple copy-pasted elements.
You're encountering something new so of course you're ignorant of how it works. There are a multiple videos on youtube you can watch. I haven't found a good one yet or I'd recommend it, but no matter which one you choose to watch, none of them will say AI art generators copy and paste.
>AI generated art does not in any way involve copying and pasting elements from other works and then doing a palette swap
LOL
>money laundering does not in anyway evolve stealing money, you give it to the money launderer then they give it back to the person
When making an analogy, which is what it looks like you're trying to do, you're supposed to make it relevant and, this part is key, analogous.
you fricking moron.
Lots of money laundering is just investment with money that would otherwise rot due to unneccessary regulations.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
>implies that deliberately attempting to extract information from a generative AI by performing 2^20 ~= 1 million repetitions on sets of training data with multiply duplicated samples in that data set with acknowledgement that even with 1 million attempts they often couldn't extract even 1 image sufficiently similar to the various test images they tried to extract is comparable to some artist choosing to copy and paste multiple elements with rotation reflection and translation of multiple element
The paper doesn't mention anything like copy and paste, way to move the goal posts.
Frick this dude. He's gonna throw a tantrum because an unnamed character he doodled looks similar to another? Frick that both look like ripoff of David Bowie why doesn't this "artist" cut him a paycheck?
Found the MtG "artist"
He copypasted from multiple artists, moron.
sure thing fay
>Frick that both look like ripoff of David Bowie
Looks more like Sting with breasts.
>David Bowie why doesn't this "artist" cut him a paycheck?
Because he's dead. For 8 years.
Disney still gets his due and people still deliver foreskins to Kellogg.
damn, if you're gonna copy something at least copy something that looks good
I thought you people loved the old "soulful" art where the atmosphere took precedence over the execution.
That art is not old and therefore not soulful
How old is it? Looks like a typical airbrish painting from the late XXth century.
Looks like 1995
https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/The_Ravengers
Same age as me, and I am quite old.
Well, when I was your age I was older
Heck, I've been born since before I was even one year old
No one gonna point the fact that the axe used in this photobash was in a angle that doesn't make sense for neither character, and it wasn't resized for the one in the background?
1/10 bait my son
Okay, now for the big question: where did she steal that goofy axe from?
I keep coming back to this thread to see if we found the axes yet
Here's my wholly original never before been seen collage.
>if we found the axes yet
You reditt found them right? Because a web search will tell you that's where the other sources were posted.
>Cut ties with some of your best artists
>Replace them with aislop and stolen art
lol, lmao even
>Be WotC
>Burn bridges with talented artists
>Get busted for using ai/hacks
>Try to get old artists back
>No artists with an ounce of self respect are willing to come back
>Pic. rel.
How did they burn the bridges with their talented artists?
He's being a gaslighting moron.
It's the artists who burned the bridges.
Terese Nielsen: Signal boosted a conspiracy peddling Sandy Hook denier
Seb McKinnon: Supported a far right-wing terror group funded by foreign entities.
Someone’s beliefs should have no impact on their artistic work being accepted. If you can’t handle ideas existing in others’ brains then you’ll end up with the low-tier slop art plaguing games today.
what's wrong with that?
Ah so perfectly normal people with functioning brains
>Supported a far right-wing terror group funded by foreign entities.
He literally just supported truckers protesting the regulations on border crossings that hurt their jobs and was fricking up people's lives.
the working man expressing his unwillingness to lay down for the government and take it is in fact terror to these people.
>the working man
lol, the working man was a miner, a factory worker, a tradesman. Some fat c**t that sits on a chair all day chucking a hissy because he was stupid enough to take out a predatory loan to buy a vehicle so he wouldn't have to "work for The Man" isn't some put upon working class victim, he's just a stupid loser who thought running a business - which is what self-employment is - would be easy street and now wants Daddy Government to prop him up with preferential treatment.
Frick truckers.
>t. Jobless virgin.
wait seb mckinnon is gone?
Yes, he backed the Canadian trucker protests so magic fans attacked him
Therese Nielsen is a known neonazi.
If you know, you know, they don't call her the shewolf for nothing...
Seb is just fat tho, lmfao fricking cuckservative.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
He probably meant Terese Nielsen,
Here's one of her last interviews
You can read what others have posted over the years about the former MTG Artist. Some of the posts go over direct & unabridged quotes.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/Terese%20Nielsen/
I know who he's talking about moron, if he wanted to call Terese Nielsen a TERF or whatever gay lingo that would be one thing because she is (even though there's nothing wrong with that), calling her a literal neonazi is a whole other.
Linking the archives isn't proof either.
Yes neonazis are known for being lesbians
Lots of Nazis are homosexuals. Like how a huge number of commies are paedos.
Anon in seventies England they had NeoNazis sieg heiling to black musicians despite being paramilitary arm of a white supremacist political group.
We are not talking about a group that values internal consistency.
Queer Nazis aren't exactly rare.
There are plenty of white gay nazis. They are not bright people.
The actual german Nazi party had a gay communist faction.
>far right-wing terror group funded by foreign entities
The world would be so much better if these actually existed
Do you think the domestic terrorist/neo-nazi groups in America and Islamic terrorist orgs don't get foreign money? Do you have mongolism? Or are you just going to go "nuh uh, actually dems socialists." or some other moronic take that will make my eyes melt.
If that's what you think the truckers protests were you are terminal
Erm... etto... uhm... but liberals told me right wingers can't into art? So why would WOTC's most talented artists be supporting right wing TERROR groups?
Nobody told you that you fricking glowie. Stop trying to promote culture war moronation. Having shit politics is no reflection of your creative ability in any world.
>Seb McKinnon: Supported a far right-wing terror group funded by foreign entities.
The Canadian truckers?
I'll be honest with you. This was all a setup for a joke about how the Foglios famously published a fetish porn comic while they were working for WotC.
That's just the Foglios, though, we've known what they're about for a long time.
I know that.
The joke was that the Foglios drew vore and inflation porn, and wouldn't it be funny if WotC were forced to exclusively employ them.
It wasn't a very good joke.
I'm sorry anon.
They drew vore? I wasn't aware of that. Where? I'm just asking so I don't find it accidentally, haha.
The frick happened to you that something getting eaten turns you on?
Rethink your life.
Wizards treating talented artists like shit has been a thing forever. The only reason that we got an alt art Sengir in commander masters is cause Pete Venters literally told them it'd be cool and he'd love to do one. They honestly hadn't even bothered to consult him beforehand.
WotC wasn't willing to pay and give them time they needed when they could hire someone from deviantart that was willing to do the "same thing" for like 1/10th of the price and 1/5th of the time.
Phil used to draw horse fricking porno, he's not one to talk about self-respect.
It's hard to find people who haven't drawn mlp considering the commissions are the 2nd most profitable compared to traditional furries.
it was not MLP. It was long before MPL was even a thing. And it wasnt even the weirdest porn Phil Foglio done, Look up xxxenophile someday, it was great.
did Girl Genius ever turn into porn? or at least get porn art?
Yes, that was the joke
See
I just didn't make it very well and it wasn't very funny.
>No artists with an ounce of self respect are willing to come back
richard kane ferguson keeps doing pieces for them. card with his art was spoiled last week.
RKF seems like he was brought back after a very long hiatus solely to get some old artist cred back into the game, I doubt he's being treated the same as any of the new blood. His art is great though so this is one of the few things I have no complaints about
uglyo has no talent
Man those axes are fricked up looking. They're at a totally wrong angle for the hands. And maybe copypasted? Can't tell for certain.
It's the same axe. The question is "from where was it copied"?
The angles on that axe are giving me a headache.
Torso and left arm apparently come from this painting
Why are they dressed like prison smut characters?
First time seeing Vallejo stuff?
On the contrary, I have a lot of his and his wife's paintings saved on my hard drive, but their characters are naked in nearly all of them.
>Why are they dressed like prison smut characters?
What prison assigns inmates jean jackets lol
How deep does this rabbit hole go? I'm getting /plag/ flashbacks.
truly despicable what WotC have done
the only way i'll ever consider buying more product from them is if they add more diversity to future sets
Diversity would unironically be something new and not copied
I am not even going to be pretending to be outraged over the generic slop art that mtg cards use to have been copied and traced. Only Phyrexian cards ever looked any good anyways.
In my opinion, Mirrodin had the best fantasy landscape art of all time.
Gigakino aesthetics. Gonna save that shit to my inspiration folder
thats beatiful anon, got other great MTG art?
anything by Rebecca Guay. She hasn't illustrated anything since Lorwyn-Shadowmoor block, but she is the most SOVLful artist wotc hired.
>She hasn't illustrated anything since Lorwyn-Shadowmoor block
>he doesn't know
Anon... no, it is for the best that you don't know...
Yeah, her return was extremely disappointing.
It just fricking sucks, man. You can just feel the disdain she must apparently have for her magic career, given this fricking coffee shop wall hanger shit she submitted.
Such a shame, her art is by far my favorite magic art, followed by Seb. Oh and Avon lands I suppose.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/statement-on-trouble-in-pairs
>Oh yeah, we were really suspicious of this artwork all along.
>We still printed it on the card, though.
>all along.
Those are you words, Black person. I hate wotc like every other guy, but fricking phrase it better.
>and we had questions too
It's ambiguous, but nobody would be blamed for reading this as "we were suspicious all along"
"we had questions too" is past tense to but "As we have looked into this" after it temporally
there is nothing in the sentence requires "we had questions too" to be before "We've heard questions" and context implies "we had questions too" came after
Translation: We didn't care and are only reacting now due to bad press and the possibility of being sued.
>Fay Dalton
This sounds like a fake-ass name. I bet the actual artist was named Chat-GPT.
Probably!
AI art isn't plagiarized, though.
AI image generators are completely intransparent database applications with a natural language search engine user interface. You aren't making art, you're asking a piece of software to find a result that's infinitely close to the means of a part of everything stored inside its database.
It's as far from making art as being able to filter the search results of a library catalog down to results from any specific field is from making you a Ph.D.
>database
There is no database, anon. The easiest way to explain it to someone who doesn't know anything about the tech is that most generative AI are basically like a huge coin sorting machine, but at the end of it are letters that gets stringed together, or pixels which will be put on a canvas.
And the coin is whatever you prompt it. Not much different from "art" made by people like Jackson Pollock, but I also don't consider it art either.
>The easiest way to explain it to someone who doesn't know anything about the tech is that most generative AI are basically like a huge coin sorting machine, but at the end of it are letters that gets stringed together, or pixels which will be put on a canvas.
And where did that machine learn which letter / pixel goes where?
Aren't they learning from labeled samples?
The machine never learns anything.
It just quantifies whatever it's output is to be more numerically equal to whatever its goal is. Whether that be a sample text or art.
>The machine never learns anything.
Allow me to rephrase, where does it get those quantification formulas from?
It's a Big Data application, which is a type of database application. It's just one that's telling you what the average of Big Titty Elf Waifu is.
>And where did that machine learn which letter / pixel goes where?
Randomly, more or less.
>Aren't they learning from labeled samples?
This is the interesting part. The generative AI doesn't use labeled examples. But to make generative AI, you need a second AI, which is usually trained together, and this one needs labeled samples.
Using the forger and the detective example, these two AIs does the following:
>forger AI try to make a fake money bill from any country
>detective AI then use real bills (labelled examples) to try and discover if that money bill is fake or not
>forger AI then gets told if his fake bill passed and with how much confidence the detective had
>forger AI then does small, and sometimes almost random changes to its pegs and cogs to see if it can get better (repeat this process an unholy amount of times)
After the training is done, you have both an AI that is really good at making up shit that looks real, and one that is really good at classifying things and spotting fakes, and since they are basically a bunch of pegs and cogs, they are extremely light to run. This is why the training process costs a shitton of money and needs supercomputers, while the finished product can be installed and ran in domestic PCs.
(cont.)
This is why despite generative AI needing labelled samples to exist, it has never actually seen a single one of those samples.
At the same time, if for example, you give the detective AI, a bunch of fantasy pictures with the Wayne Reynolds signature, it will think that fantasy pictures needs those to be fantasy pictures, and the generative AI will be inclined to do that to try to "fool" the detective.
This is a problem commonly known as "overfitting", where the generative AI can't make generic images, but instead, have been whipped so much and have been in this game for so long, that it managed to guess how the samples given to the detective looks like, and have only been making that.
Thats a good description of how GANs work but unfortunately none of the state of the art image gen or LLM AIs use GANs anymore anon.
It's more or less the same. The internal working are still the same cogs and pegs, but they just changed the detective for a quiz magazine that has answers in the back.
How exactly do you animals think text prompts are connected to the image generation engine?
Do you think these people torture us with captcha to create good men and pay third worlders to classify images as part of a tax deductable foreign aid program?
Captcha is part of the classifying training of the AI here:
. Captcha existed way before generative AI because making generative AI like we do it currently is pretty new, and we already had a lot of uses for AI that is capable of classifying things, like identifying fire in satellite images of a forest.
In the case of text captcha, it's most likely for shit like Google Lens, where it tries to read text from a picture, and it can even compare if it is doing better than humans at it.
>AI image generators are completely intransparent database applications with a natural language search engine user interface.
No.
I have a copy of Stable Diffusion on my computer. I can run it offline. It is 4GB. It was trained on 5 billion images. 4 GB / 5 billion = 6.4 bits. For comparison, one 256 value (such as the R, G, or B value of a single pixel) is 8 bits. There is no compression algorithm in the world that can get an image of any substance down to 6.4 bits. If there were, it would have much better uses than drawing gyaru versions of Cassandra Cain.
AI learns from the original art pieces (though the other anon is correct in that it never actually sees those art pieces), but it does not keep them in memory. There is not a database of images that it is creating a collage from. This simply and obviously untrue if you look at the file sizes, but it is also obviously untrue if you try using a generative AI at all.
>drawing gyaru versions of Cassandra Cain
You can't just say that and not provide proof.
Those are just aryan versions, I need gyaru versions.
This. Most of these models are open source. You can look at the internals yourself and see that they are just mathematical weights.
Still a step short of being orange juice without oranges though.
>I dOnT aVe ThE iMaGiS i OnLy AvE dI iNfO aBuT 5tRiLiOn ImAgIs
Info you shouldn't have the way you got it to use as you see fit.
>Info you shouldn't have the way you got it to use as you see fit.
Ok, I'll bite.
Why not?
>Moving Goalposts.
You can make an anti-reverse engineering argument (or whatever this is), but it's an entirely different argument than "muh copy paste collage".
AI art doesn't work this way though. This is very specifically copy pasting from like 3 sources, where as AI is an amalgamation of general ideas of like, millions of images.
>we're so shocked! we had questions too, just like you
the way wotc grovels is so disgusting and slimy, its really fitting of the people who work there
It's easy to shit on Wottocks for this because it's a pile shit company, but they put their turst in the artist like they do with all of their artists, and this artist turned out to be a stinky fraudster.
Plagiarists end up ruining the reputation of their employers, with (understandable) reactions just like your being the exact thing they want to avoid. Because a company uses it's name and takes ownership of the products it's employees make, it also claims ownership of the plagiarised material pushed through the same pipeline by default. The BIG problem is, with such obviously lifted work, it can be argued a copyright already exists.
The card will almost certainly get a reprint, perhaps even a recall of the fakey ones, but because this is *the* Trading Card Game we're talking about, this stolen art version will become a highly priced collectors piece in a few years time.
>The danger is in corporations getting a stranglehold on AI art generation tools through copyright law, not the fact that AI is going to put low-level factory "artists" out of a job.
Corporations aren't going to get a stranglehold on anything through copyright law, because that's not how copyright law works.
While it's unlikely people are going to be replaced by these tools any time soon, there is a near future where employees will be forced to use it, even highly capable employees who's workflow would not be improved with it's use.
>Corporations aren't going to get a stranglehold on anything through copyright law, because that's not how copyright law works.
Correction: that is not how copyright law is intended to work. However, that is how it actually works.
Only shit head homosexuals care about that kinda thing.
lmao stfu fay you hack
Thank you for playing the part.
Similar, but no tracing.
Hi Fay, how's your jobless ass doing?
I believe her ass is the body part that is the least likely to stay jobless.
What's the problem with tracing comparing to just using something as a reference point? They obviously changed the character a bit, just don't understand why they would have to reinvent the wheel where there is obviously something they liked they used as a reference for their art of what they wanted?
the neck muscles alone are literally 1:1. this ain't tracing, this is just copy-and-paste and then painting on top to obfuscate the hackery
Because when you call and sell that as your own artistic work, that's a lie.
The problem is that this is a product that will sell. If it were capeshit, nobody would care because it's a b2b product anyway.
she's pretty hot, if I was Donato I would've tried to keep this under the counter by getting sloppy toppies
Where's her left arm?
Between her legs. That pervert!
You can see her left hand just below her left knee.
She can plagiarize my art (if you catch my meaning.
Is that the same chick, no magic at all on her site
Making an AI tool that could detect plagiarism in human art could really put the cat among the pigeons lol
That kind of technology has already existed for years. It's also going to get harder to plagiarize stuff once the tech gets better. All the more reason why the people shilling for AI as a means for "idea guys" to make a living are deluded morons, since there will be a industry just for massive corporations to use AI to detect exactly what previous works YOUR output was generated from and then promptly slap your shit for copyright infringement.
It exists and it's still constantly getting false positives.
Copyrighters should be hanged. But so do entire WoTC leadership.
Can't they just blame the artist instead?
It's worse than that. The guy she stole from is another mtg artist, too. She stole from a coworker and expected him not to notice just because the work she stole was something he did for another job.
Ah so it's a standard woman in the workplace moment
>character with generic punk hairstyle looks like other character with generic punk hairstyle
Except this is literally a photobash, not just characters looking similar. It even has the same fricking lighting.
It's a smoothed over collage. Had he then taken then lightboxed the image and used it as a base to create a new blocking sketch all would be well within industry standard. But he didn't. He just sent WotC the collage.
Some older models were, but people are still claiming that training an AI on art you don't own is plagiarism. It's not tested in court yet, so its really up in the air if it legally. Morally it's no different than practicing from art, but legally. We just don't know.
>Some older models were, but people are still claiming that training an AI on art you don't own is plagiarism. It's not tested in court yet, so its really up in the air if it legally. Morally it's no different than practicing from art, but legally. We just don't know.
It is possible that the production of e.g. a Stable Diffusion model is copyright violating. However, the end product is basically never going to appear plagiarized, simply because the AI doesn't remember enough about any individual piece. It's something like 6 bits per image in the training set for Stable Diffusion, which is not enough for one whole pixel.
This type of plagiarism is not the kind that generative AI models produce.
>the fate of an entire industry can lie in the hand of a boomer judge whose last computer was from IBM
Nuts how that happens
Well, the smart grifters and criminals end up not getting caught
It depends on it calling it "sufficiently transformed".
>"sufficiently transformed".
In this case, "transformed" would be the horizontal flip tool. I would not call it sufficient.
The problem isn't even with where the line is, it's the fact that there is no way for a single person to protect their work from a corporation. There are no realistic avenues the individual creator can take, and each one they could try leads to the individual's bankruptcy and being blacklisted from all forums and societies of art forevermore.
And it's not just a wealth thing. Crowdfunding does exist. What's more of an issue in this one is IP ownership.
~
However.
~
If WotC don't own Cyberpunk... Well, see, everything I just said above can be ignored.
What this is, is a single plagarist, taking a very careless shit on WotC's bumpy reputation, among other things, and this is one of the few kinds of publicity that's worse than no publicity. If WotC haven't found out about this guy yet, they will, and that 'artist' is as good as gone.
And then the backlog of other people's work the plagarist has used will probably be dug up, because doing that is sexy these days.
The most amusing thing about this kind of laziness is how insultingly low effort it is. Not even bothering to switch details around or to change colors is straight up arrogant. The artist has probably been doing this for ages, always got away with it and got wienery.
>Why would you ruin your career
If you look at that axe on the left you'll see that drawing is not one of their strong points.
Bruh look at the tracing shit that goes on in Comics. They aren't going to bring down fricking Hasbro ffs.
It feels like this one has been copied from somewhere too
Look at the bracers, they feel out of place and like they're on a different layer, just like with the other one
the perspective is messed up as well, she's at a wrong angle relative to the mirror, this is definitely a stitch up job as well
It's not a mirror, it's a stupid magitech monitor
the question then is "are these just badly traced from fair-game references, or from art that's not OK to trace?"
because as
says, comics trace shit all the time.
"With Greg Land you know where you stand" etc
>"With Greg Land you know where you stand" etc
I still enjoy Jun Shindo for the way he draws one splash panel and then re-frames that illustration over and over again in consecutive panels. It's very ingenious.
And we can't forget about Auguste Rodin, who repeatedly re-used his own archive of past scultures in his current work. So that artist here is lacking an essential skill required for her craft.
Remember in the 90s when the artists were amazing and drew their own art? What the frick happened?
>Remember in the 90s when the artists were amazing
The 90s cards weren't exactly the cream of the crop and digital art and the internet helped a lot of artists getting real good on the cheap in the decades that followed.
It's just that the good ones don't work at the rates this company is offering.
>Remember in the 90s when the artists were amazing and drew their own art? What the frick happened?
I remember in the 90s when some marvel artist got caught tracing Psylocke from a panel of Zealot from WildCATS. Wizard Magazine covered it and it was a big deal at the time.
And then Greg Land was like: "Ya all small potatoes. Open your peepers and watch this."
Literally never happened? Every single comic artist has been tracing for a hundred years lmfao, either from references or later from other comic books.
No reason to make hurtful comments over misunderstood artist intention or secretly verboten techniques. Tracing/bashing/equivalent methods are still superior to ai slop “artists” who think 15 seconds of prompt writing is haute creative expression. I’d prefer to critique the end product from a emotional response quotient, under that criteria it’s possible to be constructive rather dismissive or needlessly callous. The end product is, lacking cohesion with multiple undesirable perspective breaks. Composition wise the disparate elements do come together though lacks an indeterminate quality that’d leave end viewer thinking “there’s something wrong here but it’s got heart and it makes me feel something”
But when Internet Historian plagiarized, you all defended him. I guess because it's a woman this time she doesn't get that special treatment.
Dilate, boy.
Internet daddy plagiarized = based
Random woman plagiarizes = KILL HER NOW!
I think it's just pent up homosex frustration
Tell that to Wotc, they just threw her under the bus.
My advice to the artist would be to change the hair color and paint a little over the copypasted parts so the autists who collect Mtg cards won't immediately recognize where it's lifted from. She deserves what she got for being that stupid.
Wotc searching for the cheapest artists with short deadlines can only lead to this - or sooner than later, AI art getting past as original.
>everyone on the internet is the same person
No, only the ones that disagree with you.
You all pick and choose from the same 3 personality types honestly.
meds
Sorry for insulting Internet Daddy : (
meds
why did so many posts get deleted while all the spam threads in the catalog stay up?
Just look at what posts were deleted here, and which ones weren't. That should explain it.
This is such a trainwreck lol I love it tbh
So much amusing disaster cause dby people just refusing to make an effort in this life, don't be this person!
To be fair, if you worked at WotC, would you bother putting any effort in? You're underpaid, unappreciated, given nowhere near enough time, and have basically no guidelines, and you know that no matter what you do everyone's going to assume it's just AI.
>this is exactly what I'm talking about
YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH WHAT YOU MADE. I am not a great painter at all but I try paint minis in a way that I don't stay up at night.
>I am not a great painter at all but I try paint minis in a way that I don't stay up at night.
You're not a very good fit for the culture of WOTC.
The problem is the people who made it like this are the ones benefiting, so they live just fine.
If you worked for a dogshit company that treated you like crap and didn't give a shit about what you did or the quality of your work at all, you wouldn't give it your all. If you did give it your all, you're either a moronic wageslave or a boomer.
Fair amount of "staff artists" get in more on connections rather than actual skill. They were likely phoning things in from even before they started working for Hasbro.
>basically no guidelines,
There's lots of guidelines.
Sometimes they share art descriptions and they're quite detailed with BIG emphasis on the sex and the ethnicity/race of the characters.
>Copying
It's inspired by, not a copy.
Who's the artist on the card art?
At what point is copying theft of intellectual property?
The artist made a collage of differing materials and composited them into a new piece.
I don't think it is theft, because there is enough changes to the art to make it visually distinct.
I think the biggest problem is that it's ugly and lame. The emotional reaction of "oh, this isn't what I thought it was and now I feel let down" is enough to react to it poorly without even bothering with legality or morality.
Legally, it is very hard nowadays to reach the level of infringement. You can look at Cariou v. Prince for an insane level of visual copying that was found non-infringing.
Practically, it is so close that it looks bad even to a layman, which is the point at which the suits care (bad PR).
I can already this his answer "it was not me, it was AI fault".
Honestly I got no problem with this. If it were up to me, intellectual """property""" would be abolished.
Honestly I got no problem with this. If it were up to me, intellectual """"property"""" would be abolished.
So what, success will just be measured by who has the biggest israelite financer behind them?
I don't get it, why did she do this? She has publicly available art from years ago that are original and very pleasant looking. Same with that fricking Vampire 5th edition guy.
Deadlines, probably.
When you ask human artists to work at AI speed and AI pay and you don't care about quality so long as it's at least AI good, then of course they're going to steal a page from the playbook of AI.
AI does what it does because it's the most efficient method of satisfying soulless west coast corporate suits.
This is worse than AI because the pre-smoothing collage could have been passed through an AI then have the artifacts cleaned up in post and it nobody would have known better.
How do people even find out about stuff like this? Does every artist on this planet constantly checks every single picture made in media to see if they weren't copied?
Some random guy who recognises the art Cyberpunk and also happens to play MtG sees the card art and sends the artist a message saying, "hey, you seen this shit?" The internet's made the whole world much, much smaller
The artist they stole from is a WotC employee who also does art for mtg.
Ai-coomers won’t be satisfied until humans stop making anything, until all creative spirit is snuffed out. Stacey won’t go out with you anyway, even if the art guys have been made redundant. If anything, social ‘skills’ and looks will be even more valuable as ai takes over.
MTG is such a fricking trainwreck. I can't believe idiots collect these ugly slop photobashed curled cards from walmart after the game turned into this and fired the actual artists
Imagine being proud of a collection of thousands of sloppy digital paintings of plagiarism or at best photos of their friends in dumb jazzhand poses getting stupid haircuts digitally painted over them
You are implying she ever created anything herself. It's pretty much confirmed at this point that every artwork of hers contains stolen art.
my problem with AI art is that it all looks the same, there's nothing special about it. No spark, no drive.
I'd rather have a shitty sketch by someone with zero artistic talent that comes from the heart than something made by a robot
train a different model then, dork
of course all the sloppa made by everyone using the same NAI leaked model look the same, it's like complaining a french chef can't into sashimi.
No, I prefer to remain a luddite and refuse to adapt, and you can't make me, even if you try to drag me kicking and screaming in to your horrible future. Begone, computer-demons.
01101110 01101001 01100111 01100111 01100101 01110010
Arigato, mister roboto.
Most people prompt the same, so of course it will look the same. But you can see for yourself that there is much more than the "shit that always looks the same".
https://civitai.com/images
The non-prompters who train their own model and code mods to improve or modify outputs in a consistent, controllable and repeateable manner are doing good work.
What's more, once you can train AI to create tweens, our basket weaving cartoon scene will become very interesting as the man-hour requirements will drop significantly.
AI has made skillfully made art available to the people with no skill. They prompt for what is popular, because that's what most people, themselves, like. I have niche tastes and I get what I like, and when I think that it can't get any better, I find a way to get closer to perfection.
There's no skill in algorithms making art.
Let me clarify, I didn't mean to say that it takes skill to use generation tools. But the results look like they were skillfully made.
There are plenty folks who work the database mechanisms at the programming level to get better and/or or more controllable results. Not everybody in the scene is prompter scum gatcha rolling for asian elf waifus.
I broadly speaking find that the results look ugly and are instantly recognizable as AI art. YMMV but I would rather a game book illustrated by Scrap Princess than by AI, and I say this as somebody who has used AI art.
>and are instantly recognizable as AI art
soon they won't be, i remember beta testing DALLE 1 just a couple years ago and it was fricking atrocious compared to what we publicly have now
I hope you're correct, but am personally dubious. Stable Diffusion came out over 1.5 years ago and there's still that recognizable sheen to stuff made by NAI or the Bing Image Generator or civitai models.
I do think it'll get better at hands and text, but I'm dubious on the "AI art sheen" getting coded out, especially because a lot of AI sloppers seem to be so aesthetically disabled that they cannot notice it themselves.
AI Art being recognizable as the reason to disqualify it, is a captious argument (I'd say it's an "ad hominem", lol).
There are lots of valid arguments against AI art: like blatant errors, the noisy texture in almost everything that Bing AI produces, or the limitations that the limited resolution imposes....but if you don't like it just because you have recognised it, then you are biased.
If you can recognize it, it's automatically shit. Animation has already been ruined by this lazy CG crap, we don't need AI ruining still images with half-assed "good enough" trash to save money so lazy and greedy people can benefit.
So if you cannot recognise it, then it is automatically good...even when there are three feet, or a blue banana in a still llife painting. Your argument holds no weight.
You only find AI art so immediately unappealing because you're ideologically possessed of the need to oppose it for what you feel are ethical reasons. In reality it mostly looks fine as long as the results are being hand-curated by people that aren't intensely lazy and/or stupid.
It won't be long before AI art is indistinguishable from human made high quality art. The danger is in corporations getting a stranglehold on AI art generation tools through copyright law, not the fact that AI is going to put low-level factory "artists" out of a job.
I'm opposed because it's a source of low-quality visual noise that can be instantly recognized for the quackery it is.
>It won't be long before AI art is indistinguishable from human made high quality art.
People have been saying that about compushit graphics for over 30 years and it's no closer to being true now.
AI art generation has literally nothing in common with normal CGI you mongoloid. You're literally saying "computer graphics made by PEOPLE look bad" like that has something to do with imagery made by a computer with no human involvement.
You can stamp your feet and cry about it as much as you want, but AI art and text generation has made insane leaps and bounds in the extremely short time that it's been around and it's not going to just stop improving because you don't like it.
CGI is more legitimate than AI slop (an actual human was involved) and still looks like shit, because CGI exists purely as a tool to save money for greedy suits and to enable animators who are too lazy and untalented to do their job otherwise.
CGI and AI art aren't comparable you dense moron.
Sure they are. They're both visual pink slime pushed by delusional idiots that has, does, and always will look like fricking garbage.
Every single piece of AI "art" I've seen has been A) immediately recognizable and B) completely worthless artistically and aesthetically.
I do not care for your arguments, as they are meaningless before the evidence in front of my own eyes.
It is generally to the art's detriment when I can recognize it as CGI. The same applies to AI art. Perhaps there is somewhere in the future where an "AI sheen" is no longer noticeable purely because it is an ugly deviation from humans, in the same way that some CGI looks good despite being obviously CG (e.g. parts of Annihilation), but right now, it is not so.
I can distinguish between an oil painting, a watercolor, and digital art painted by a human. I can argue that I don't like some of the trends and styles in modern digital art, but I won't disqualify all of it for being digital. I'll grant merit to the artist for a traditional painting as I appretiate that there's more skill involved, but it won't make me like it automatically.
Being able to recognize the medium used to create a work of art inherently lowers its artistic value and damages one's ability to judge it as a piece of art. It forces material preconceptions upon it. When I can tell a statue is carved from stone, it is lessened - no longer is it a pure work of art, it is merely a stone. When I can recognize that a picture is painted, it stops being a beautiful visage - it becomes splotches of paint upon canvas. True art exists beyond its medium.
>. When I can tell a statue is carved from stone, it is lessened - no longer is it a pure work of art, it is merely a stone. When I can recognize that a picture is painted, it stops being a beautiful visage - it becomes splotches of paint upon canvas.
That's a very moronic view. You appreciate it less for knowing the craft that's gone into it?
That is not the sort of difference that AI art represents, though. AI art looks bad on a technical level, that is why it is recognizable as AI art. If AI art in 2030 is used to fill in a beautiful crowd scene with 1000 distinct human faces in a way no human would ever do, then cool. Right now it has weird shading and other stuff like that which looks bleh.
>I don't even think they can recognize it. I'm sure a lot of people can but not these guys.
I mean, maybe it's like a toupee but I see an art piece, go "hm this looks AI-ish" and then find that yes, it is AI art. Sometimes I'll even be confused for a second because it has an actual signature, then I realize that it's an AI artist's twitter account.
I don't even think they can recognize it. I'm sure a lot of people can but not these guys.
Like, look at this idiot, what kind of point does he think he's making? With the text or with the image?
Recognizing something because it looks like shit does not mean it stops looking like shit because people are inherently biased against shit.
It's gotten better at not putting 7 fingers on each hand, it's still the case that AI quackery is detected by a causual glimpse. I think to produce what we perceive as art, you need true AI, as in self reflection and awarenes, I don't think LLM is enough. At the end of the day it's just a glorified statstical model that outputs what it thinks is most likely to be the correct answer, not because it has insight but because it has seen a million similar images and just slaps together some bullshit.
>I think to produce what we perceive as art, you need true AI, as in self reflection and awarenes,
No you don't. Most people cannot distinguish AI from real art if the AI output is human curated and weird anomalies in the generation are selected. You just have to program the AI to be better at curating and fitting real human art styles. You're talking about a bleeding edge technology that has gone from producing complete nonsensical horseshit to being able to produce extremely close copies of nearly any artist alive in a matter of years. Fart-huffing about how """artists""" who are mostly just drawing corporate slop in the first place are sooper speshul because ??? is not going to save you when AI consumes every soft-skill job in the next few decades.
>weird anomalies in the generation are selected
selected out*
I cast you back to the hell from whence you were spawned, slopshitter. Begone from this world, and /tg/, and never return!
You know it to be true.
sup
People don't bother specifying the style they want, so AI uses the average of every style it knows
I fricked around a bit and created a LoRA (modifier that 'teaches' a model a specific concept) based around an artist I liked. He mostly draws characters so I've been fricking around with landscapes in the style to see what it might look like. I'm very happy with the results and they seem different enough to 'normal' AI art.
Feels like something doodled in a bored pupil's note book.
"""SOVL"""
>entire thread devolves to ai slop talk when ai has nothing to do with anything
Bigsby’s big dick book of giants buckbroke tg irreparably lmao. Im friends with the guy that did that and no one here even understands what happened. Ai is the least of wotc’s art problems. They have been pumping out digital slop of ugly frowning people for decades at this point.
>ai has nothing to do with anything
It's tangentially topical, since WotC artists, besides just tracing other artists and flipping the drawing in photoshop, have been caught like 3-5 times now using AI. Then WotC denies it, then WotC admits it and lies and claims it was an accident.
And yeah, even when they DO actually draw something, it's unskilled and offensive to basic human sensibilities.
It was one time and it was my friend that did it as i just stated. Its not my place to say all the details but it had nothing to do with wotc pushing ai art at all. Ai, for some reason, is totally verboten in the minds of leftoid trannies. Probably because half of them are shitty commission artists about to replaced by shitty robots. Those same leftoid trannies run mtg and dnd. Its very odd that tg is trying to pin ai on a bunch of troonys that treat ai as the next big boogyman. I honestly dont get it, other than the user-base here is general dumb and getting dumber each month.
the companies they work for, are, surprising, dishonest as frick and don't care about their employees views or what their sheep consumerbase think. they do these things to cut costs and to get attention - because corporations somehow still don't get that bad publicity is not good publicity.
there's your answer. its never just one group. its always multiple groups with different motives and goals.
Is this the part where they say they didn't steal on purpose and it was AI?
And this are the people complaining about AI art? The joke tells itself
https://www.faydalton.com/casino-royal
She has drawn a bunch of artbooks on Bond too.
Gues she's just used to use reference images and trace over either that or WotC deadline was so cramped she did a rush job. Or both. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt seeing how WotC treats artists in general.
worthless ai card shart
This is too blatant. I think an AI spat it out, with the nominal artist touching it up some and submitting it as his own shit.
>I have painted over that garbage AI sheen and removed an extra finger. The perfect crime.
>I think an AI spat it out
see
>too blatant
Summerchild.
>too blatant
>too blatant
You're just wrong. This example might be called "fine art" by "connoisseurs" but the guy made a career off plagiarism.
I think A.I. is kinda neat
Probably because you're moronic.
No u
Why is this a problem? That's how human artists work, they just copypaste bits from various things they've seen. You know, like AI.
What is it about AI that makes some people so butthurt?
We were supposed to automate the shitty stuff first, not the tools for human expression
We already did automate the shitty stuff. This just happens to be accessible by everyone, not just the people who can afford it.
Farm work has largely been automated.
Factory work has largely been automated.
The number of employees required for either type of work is minimal.
Now they're automating creative expression so it will require few employees as well.
In the future, the vast majority of jobs will likely be shitty minimum wage sales service industry jobs.
Welcome to Walmart, I love you
Transformation of a piece into something new, would be fair use.
Attributing the original artist is not required.
Is the Transformation here is enough for Fair Use?
Maybe the artist thought so.